Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Mathew ranges is highly significant in Kenyan history for conservation
Evidence B:Proximity to KBAs
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: 50-100t/ha and highly recoverable
Evidence B:No but map is based on forest carbon not soil carbon. Dense forest is only found within the Matthews Range sector of the conservancy
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: IPLC governance is recognised but there is a very heavy presence of other partners too but does not undermine IPLCs
Evidence B:Group ranches owned by IPs. Forest co-management agreement with KFS
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: They have well explained the cultural importance and significance but only towards the end. They took most of the time in this question to talk about the land ownership and spent just one paragraph to explain the significance which i know very well would have been long
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: cited overgrazing, degradation, population among others
Evidence B:Rangeland degradation, ivory and rhino horn poaching, bushmeat hunting, climate change
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Kenya is known for legislations and policies but lack implementation always
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: The County Government of Samburu has put in some effort to support, KFS has also supported a lot
Evidence B:Formal agreements with KFS to co-manage Mathews Range forest. Detailed list of Kenya laws supporting community conservancies
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: There exists a co-management agreement between the community and KFS to rehabilitate 2,500 Ha of the rangeland
Evidence B:Conservancy established in 1995 and implementing activities since then
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: NRT, TNC, KFS and the County Government are very supportive and strong for the last 24 years
Evidence B:Clearly presented in Q6 table
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The most important one is that IPLCs are gaining rights and governance of their natural resources
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The activities and outcomes are well defined but there is lacking a theory of change
Evidence B:Very well written response to Q7 with actions and desired outcomes
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: They are neither over ambitious nor low there should have been a score for medium contribution
Evidence B:Well considered tasks that building on prior work
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Very achievable!
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: With NRT and the County Government in place they are well supported
Evidence B:Does not appear that they have match. Conservancy operation funds comes primarily from two luxury lodges that are currently seeing depressed revenues as a result of a drop in tourism because of the pandemic
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: There should have been a score of between 10,000ha to 50,000 Nalowuon is 32,085, which is slightly higher than 10, 000Ha and less than 100,000Ha
Evidence B:The Conservancy is huge and covers a large portion of the Mathews Range
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: moderately aligned eg bee keeping, charcoal burning and pasture management all contributing to project objectives
Evidence B:Clear links to community benefits - not so much cultural benefits.
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: Well supported by NRT and the County Government. They also have income generating activities within th econservancy, eg the Sarara camp and the Tree house Lodge both generate income
Evidence B:Assumption is that the two luxury lodges will eventually host tourists and generate income for the conservancy.
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: They make mention of SDG1 and 2 and climate change mitigation by 2030
Evidence B:Relatively clear presentation ofthe connection
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: very well thought out and numbers of women beneficiaries well drawn, and they make mention of youth and people with disability
Evidence B:Simply state that women will be beneficiaries.
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: There is no innovation demonstrated, the usual activities such as capacity building, reduced charcoal burning, etc , nothing significantly new
Evidence B:This is a continuation of existing conservancy activities and is not a new innovation
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: NRT as a partner very significant, KWS, TNC are not necessarily IPLCs but helpful.
Evidence B:The very high quality of the writing either confirms that the conservancy conservation manager has excellent skills
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The leaders are people from this region
Evidence B:Conservancy was established in 1995
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Ngilai, Kalepo and the group ranches are all IPLCs this is good enough
Evidence B:Excellent list of collaborators
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Rich experience in the field of conservation and donor relations in the past, and implementation of GEF projects
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Has managed 600,000 USD and many more with evidence demonstrated
Evidence B:See table Q29
Evidence C:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Answered yes with high sound financial management systems in place,..
Evidence B:No evidence given
Evidence C:NA